I like this idea. I would also like to set up some sort of automated ABI checker as well (the options I found were GPL/LGPL so I need to figure out how to proceed).
I can put up a PR later that formalizes these guidelines in CONTRIBUTING.md. It looks like there's a pre-commit hook for this sort of thing too, which'll let us enforce it in CI! On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, at 10:18, Matthew Topol wrote: > Automated semver would be ideal if we can do it..... > > There's quite a lot of utilities that exist which would automatically > handle the versioning if we're using conventional commits. > > On Mon, Sep 12 2022 at 02:26:15 PM +0200, Jacob Wujciak > <ja...@voltrondata.com.INVALID> wrote: >> + 1 to independent, semver versioning for adbc. >> I would propose we use conventional commit style [1] commit messages >> for >> the pr commits (I assume squash + merge) so we can automate the >> versioning|double check manual versioning. >> >> [1]: <https://www.conventionalcommits.org/> >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 6:05 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org >> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >>> Thanks all, I've updated the header with the proposed versioning >>> scheme. >>> >>> At this point I believe the core definitions are ready. (Note that >>> I'm >>> explicitly punting on [1][2][3] here.) Absent further comments, I'd >>> like to >>> do the following: >>> >>> - Start a vote on mirroring adbc.h to arrow/format, as well adding >>> docs/source/format/ADBC.rst that describes the header, the Java >>> interface, >>> the Go interface, and the versioning scheme (I will put up a PR >>> beforehand) >>> - Begin work on CI/packaging, with a release hopefully coinciding >>> with >>> Arrow 10.0.0 >>> - Begin work on changes to the main repository, also hopefully in >>> time for >>> 10.0.0 (moving the Flight SQL driver to be part of apache/arrow; >>> exposing >>> it in PyArrow; possibly also exposing Acero via ADBC) >>> >>> [1]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/46> >>> [2]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/55> >>> [3]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/59> >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 3, 2022, at 18:36, Matthew Topol wrote: >>> > +1 from me on the strategy proposed by Kou. >>> > >>> > That would be my preference also. I agree it is preferable to be >>> versioned >>> > independently. >>> > >>> > --Matt >>> > >>> > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022, 6:24 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com >>> <mailto:k...@clear-code.com>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> > Do we have a preference for versioning strategy? Should we >>> >> > proceed in lockstep with the Arrow C++ library et. al. and >>> >> > release "ADBC 1.0.0" (the API standard) with "drivers >>> >> > version 10.0.0", or use an independent versioning scheme? >>> >> > (For example, release API standard and components at >>> >> > "1.0.0". Then further releases of components that do not >>> >> > change the spec would be "1.1", "1.2", ...; if/when we >>> >> > change the spec, start over with "2.0", "2.1", ...) >>> >> >>> >> I like an independent versioning schema. I assume that ADBC >>> >> doesn't need backward incompatible changes frequently. How >>> >> about incrementing major version only when ADBC needs >>> >> any backward incompatible changes? >>> >> >>> >> e.g.: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Release ADBC (the API standard) 1.0.0 >>> >> 2. Release adbc_driver_manager 1.0.0 >>> >> 3. Release adbc_driver_postgres 1.0.0 >>> >> 4. Add a new feature to adbc_driver_postgres without >>> >> any backward incompatible changes >>> >> 5. Release adbc_driver_postgres 1.1.0 >>> >> 6. Fix a bug in adbc_driver_manager without >>> >> any backward incompatible changes >>> >> 7. Release adbc_driver_manager 1.0.1 >>> >> 8. Add a backward incompatible change to adbc_driver_manager >>> >> 9. Release adbc_driver_manager 2.0.0 >>> >> 10. Add a new feature to ADBC without any >>> >> backward incompatible changes >>> >> 11. Release ADBC (the API standard) 1.1.0 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> -- >>> >> kou >>> >> >>> >> In <7b20d730-b85e-4818-b99e-3335c40c2...@www.fastmail.com >>> <mailto:7b20d730-b85e-4818-b99e-3335c40c2...@www.fastmail.com>> >>> >> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Thu, 01 Sep >>> 2022 >>> >> 16:36:43 -0400, >>> >> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Following up here with some specific questions: >>> >> > >>> >> > Matt Topol added some Go definitions [1] (thanks!) I'd assume >>> we want >>> to >>> >> vote on those as well? >>> >> > >>> >> > How should the process work for Java/Go? For C/C++, I assume >>> we'd >>> treat >>> >> it like the C Data Interface and copy adbc.h to format/ after a >>> vote, >>> and >>> >> then vote on releases of components. Or do we really only >>> consider the C >>> >> header as the 'format', with the others being language-specific >>> affordances? >>> >> > >>> >> > What about for Java and for Go? We could vote on and tag a >>> release for >>> >> Go, and add a documentation page that links to the Java/Go >>> definitions >>> at a >>> >> specific revision (as the equivalent 'format' definition for >>> Java/Go)? >>> Or >>> >> would we vendor the entire Java module/Go package as the >>> 'format'? >>> >> > >>> >> > Do we have a preference for versioning strategy? Should we >>> proceed in >>> >> lockstep with the Arrow C++ library et. al. and release "ADBC >>> 1.0.0" >>> (the >>> >> API standard) with "drivers version 10.0.0", or use an >>> independent >>> >> versioning scheme? (For example, release API standard and >>> components at >>> >> "1.0.0". Then further releases of components that do not change >>> the spec >>> >> would be "1.1", "1.2", ...; if/when we change the spec, start >>> over with >>> >> "2.0", "2.1", ...) >>> >> > >>> >> > [1]: >>> <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/blob/main/go/adbc/adbc.go> >>> >> > >>> >> > -David >>> >> > >>> >> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2022, at 10:56, Sutou Kouhei wrote: >>> >> >> Hi, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> OK. I'll send pull requests for GLib and Ruby soon. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> I'm curious if you have a particular use case in mind. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I don't have any production-ready use case yet but I want to >>> >> >> implement an Active Record adapter for ADBC. Active Record >>> >> >> is the O/R mapper for Ruby on Rails. Implementing Web >>> >> >> application by Ruby on Rails is one of major Ruby use >>> >> >> cases. So providing Active Record interface for ADBC will >>> >> >> increase Apache Arrow users in Ruby community. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> NOTE: Generally, Ruby on Rails users don't process large >>> >> >> data but they sometimes need to process large (medium?) data >>> >> >> in a batch process. Active Record adapter for ADBC may be >>> >> >> useful for such use case. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> There's a little bit more API cleanup to do [1]. If you >>> >> >>> have comments on that or anything else, I'd appreciate >>> >> >>> them. Otherwise, pull requests would also be appreciated. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> OK. I'll open issues/pull requests when I find >>> >> >> something. For now, I think that "MODULE" type library >>> >> >> instead of "SHARED" type library in CMake terminology >>> >> >> [cmake] is better for driver modules. (I'll open an issue >>> >> >> for this later.) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> [cmake]: >>> <https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/add_library.html> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks, >>> >> >> -- >>> >> >> kou >>> >> >> >>> >> >> In <e6380315-94aa-4dd1-8685-268edd597...@www.fastmail.com >>> <mailto:e6380315-94aa-4dd1-8685-268edd597...@www.fastmail.com>> >>> >> >> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Sat, 27 >>> Aug 2022 >>> >> >> 15:28:56 -0400, >>> >> >> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org >>> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> I would be very happy to see GLib/Ruby bindings! I'm curious >>> if you >>> >> have a particular use case in mind. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> There's a little bit more API cleanup to do [1]. If you have >>> comments >>> >> on that or anything else, I'd appreciate them. Otherwise, pull >>> requests >>> >> would also be appreciated. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> [1]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/79> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022, at 21:53, Sutou Kouhei wrote: >>> >> >>>> Hi, >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Thanks for sharing the current status! >>> >> >>>> I understand. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> BTW, can I add GLib/Ruby bindings to apache/arrow-adbc >>> >> >>>> before we release the first version? (I want to use ADBC >>> >> >>>> from Ruby.) Or should I wait for the first release? If I can >>> >> >>>> work on it now, I'll open pull requests for it. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Thanks, >>> >> >>>> -- >>> >> >>>> kou >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> In <8703efd9-51bd-4f91-b550-73830667d...@www.fastmail.com >>> <mailto:8703efd9-51bd-4f91-b550-73830667d...@www.fastmail.com>> >>> >> >>>> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Fri, >>> 26 Aug >>> 2022 >>> >> >>>> 11:03:26 -0400, >>> >> >>>> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org >>> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>> Thank you Kou! >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> At least initially, I don't think I'll be able to complete >>> the >>> >> Dataset integration in time. So 10.0.0 probably won't ship with >>> a hard >>> >> dependency. That said I am hoping to have PyArrow take an >>> optional >>> >> dependency (so Flight SQL can finally be available from Python). >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022, at 01:01, Sutou Kouhei wrote: >>> >> >>>>>> Hi, >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> As a maintainer of Linux packages, I want >>> apache/arrow-adbc >>> >> >>>>>> to be released before apache/arrow is released so that >>> >> >>>>>> apache/arrow's .deb/.rpm can depend on apache/arrow-adbc's >>> >> >>>>>> .deb/.rpm. >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> (If Apache Arrow Dataset uses apache/arrow-adbc, >>> >> >>>>>> apache/arrow's .deb/.rpm needs to depend on >>> >> >>>>>> apache/arrow-adbc's .deb/.rpm.) >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> We can add .deb/.rpm related files >>> >> >>>>>> (dev/tasks/linux-packages/ in apache/arrow) to >>> >> >>>>>> apache/arrow-adbc to build .deb/.rpm for >>> apache/arrow-adbc. >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> FYI: I did it for datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c: >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> * >>> >> >>> <https://github.com/datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c/tree/main/package> >>> >> >>>>>> * >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>> >>> <https://github.com/datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c/blob/main/.github/workflows/package.yaml> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> I can work on it in apache/arrow-adbc. >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Thanks, >>> >> >>>>>> -- >>> >> >>>>>> kou >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> In <5cbf2923-4fb4-4c5e-b11d-007209fdd...@www.fastmail.com >>> <mailto:5cbf2923-4fb4-4c5e-b11d-007209fdd...@www.fastmail.com>> >>> >> >>>>>> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Thu, >>> 25 Aug >>> >> 2022 >>> >> >>>>>> 11:51:08 -0400, >>> >> >>>>>> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org >>> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Fair enough, thank you. I'll try to expand a bit. (Sorry >>> for the >>> >> wall of text that follows…) >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> These are the components: >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Core adbc.h header >>> >> >>>>>>> - Driver manager for C/C++ >>> >> >>>>>>> - Flight SQL-based driver >>> >> >>>>>>> - Postgres-based driver (WIP) >>> >> >>>>>>> - SQLite-based driver (more of a testbed for me than an >>> actual >>> >> component - I don't think we'd actually distribute this) >>> >> >>>>>>> - Java core interfaces >>> >> >>>>>>> - Java driver manager >>> >> >>>>>>> - Java JDBC-based driver >>> >> >>>>>>> - Java Flight SQL-based driver >>> >> >>>>>>> - Python driver manager >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> I think: adbc.h gets mirrored into the Arrow repo. The >>> Flight >>> SQL >>> >> drivers get moved to the main Arrow repo and distributed as part >>> of the >>> >> regular Arrow releases. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> For the rest of the components: they could be packaged >>> >> individually, but versioned and released together. Also, each >>> C/C++ >>> driver >>> >> probably needs a corresponding Python package so Python users do >>> not >>> have >>> >> to futz with shared library configurations. (See [1].) So for >>> instance, >>> >> installing PyArrow would also give you the Flight SQL driver, >>> and `pip >>> >> install adbc_postgres` would get you the Postgres-based driver. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> That would mean setting up separate CI, release, etc. >>> (and >>> >> eventually linking Crossbow & Conbench as well?). That does mean >>> >> duplication of effort, but the trade off is avoiding bloating >>> the main >>> >> release process even further. However, I'd like to hear from >>> those >>> closer >>> >> to the release process on this subject - if it would make >>> people's lives >>> >> easier, we could merge everything into one repo/process. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Integrations would be distributed as part of their >>> respective >>> >> packages (e.g. Arrow Dataset would optionally link to the driver >>> manager). >>> >> So the "part of Arrow 10.0.0" aspect means having a stable >>> interface for >>> >> adbc.h, and getting the Flight SQL drivers into the main repo. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> [1]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/53> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022, at 11:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 14:09:44 -0400 >>> >> >>>>>>>> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org >>> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>>>> Since it's been a while, I'd like to give an update. >>> There are >>> >> also a few questions I have around distribution. >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> Currently: >>> >> >>>>>>>>> - Supported in C, Java, and Python. >>> >> >>>>>>>>> - For C/Python, there are basic drivers wrapping >>> Flight SQL >>> and >>> >> SQLite, with a draft of a libpq (Postgres) driver (using >>> nanoarrow). >>> >> >>>>>>>>> - For Java, there are drivers wrapping JDBC and Flight >>> SQL. >>> >> >>>>>>>>> - For Python, there's low-level bindings to the C API, >>> and the >>> >> DBAPI interface on top of that (+a few extension methods >>> resembling >>> >> DuckDB/Turbodbc). >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> There's drafts of integration with Ibis [1], DBI (R), >>> and >>> >> DuckDB. (I'd like to thank Hannes and Kirill for their comments, >>> as >>> well as >>> >> Antoine, Dewey, and Matt here.) >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to have this as part of 10.0.0 in some >>> fashion. >>> >> However, I'm not sure how we would like to handle packaging and >>> >> distribution. In particular, there are several sub-components >>> for each >>> >> language (the driver manager + the drivers), increasing the >>> work. Any >>> >> thoughts here? >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Sorry, forgot to answer here. But I think your question >>> is too >>> >> broadly >>> >> >>>>>>>> formulated. It probably deserves a case-by-case >>> discussion, >>> IMHO. >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm also wondering how we want to handle this in terms >>> of >>> >> specification - I assume we'd consider the core header file/Java >>> interfaces >>> >> a spec like the C Data Interface/Flight RPC, and vote on >>> them/mirror >>> them >>> >> into the format/ directory? >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> That sounds like the right way to me indeed. >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Regards >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Antoine. >>> >> >>>
